You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: No, Facebook is NOT “Private,” Their Censorship Arm is Government Funded

in #news3 years ago (edited)

The premise that it's a private corporation is still true regardless of who it choose to do business with. It doesn't change it's status and becomes a public entity simply because it's choice is to engage a public entity to do various tasks.

Posted using Partiko Android


absolutely. if he had banged on about how it was actually formed (think its called inQtel or something) he would have an argument but this whole thing just sounds like butthurt. of course facebook is evil, but we dont need to point to its funding, that is irrelevant really. the mass psychological effect which anyone with a brain can see is what is wrong with it and the fact that it goes against basic principles of computing that nobody seems to notice. e.g. if i have a photo on my computer and i want to show my friends, why transfer the image to another server when people can just log into mine ? i believe personally that when something is used by so much of the human race, having one person controlling it is against the human races best interests. it should be forced to be public owned. lets face it its not like fuckerberg hasnt made enough cash out of it. imagine if the ad revenue was instead given to causes the users vote on, it could transform communities. they make billions from that bullshit website, those billions really belong to the users, they created all the content!

Yeah but you cannot force any private entity to become a public entity. All you can do is create a clone that's public.

The CIA created Fakebook by funding it. This makes it a government agency. Despite the claims of propagandists that they are a private company, the fact is that they are a propaganda/surveillance agency of US/global intelligence services.

That makes censorship and indoctrination of Americans unconstitutional on Fakebook and other corporations, like Goolag.

There's a very good reason for opposing psychological operations intent on subverting delegative democratic government. Only an informed citizenry can exert control over their government. When disinformation, misinformation, and censorship impedes the ability of the electorate to know and understand their world and the policies of government, then that ability to control shifts to government agents.

Examples of government controlling people abound, and exemplify horrors like genocide, tyranny, and terrorism. Allowing government agencies to pretense of private action opens the floodgates of those horrors upon the American people, and if semantics or disagreement as to facts are all that impede opposing such despotic harm, then we should make every effort to resolve our differences that we can prevent those evils.

Government funding of a public forum creates obligation of that forum to conform to lawful restrictions on government, or there are no restrictions on government in fact.

That's not how government agencies are created. In spite of who funded it, exactly like Lockheed Martin Corporation who's number one customer is the government, they aren't a State Owned Company.

Facebook or Google can censor who they want for whatever reason they want. They never agreed to the Constitution, did they?

A citizen works for the government, is provided privileges and is expected to perform duties, and in such a relationship of Employee-Employer there's little to no room for the former to make demands upon the later. The only difference between a citizen and an agent of the government is that one is directly employed by the state while the other is simply considered a servant of the state, meaning the compensation is in form of "privileges".

The lawful restrictions on government only work when you're talking about actual lawful government and not a bankrupted Governmental Service Corporation like the US Congress and US inc who's predecessors were equally bankrupted and who was NEVER anything other than a Private, For Hire, Governmental Service Corporation.

Posted using Partiko Android

"A citizen works for the government, is provided privileges and is expected to perform duties, and in such a relationship of Employee-Employer there's little to no room for the former to make demands upon the later. "

The Federalist Papers, various American authors and contemporaries of the founders of the American republic utterly disagree, and the legal foundations of the USA and it's states do as well. It is government - the agreement of individuals undertaking their own governance - that is the servant of those people.

The legal theory proceeds: individuals are inherently endowed with rights. Insofar as they agree, they delegate their authority to do so, and this service is called government.

I completely agree that corruption has utterly voided any lawful authority once delegated US government presently. Also, I note that neither I, nor any other American, has signed any compact or agreement delegating our lawful authority to that entity, and so retain our personal rights and responsibilities to govern ourselves.

I will agree to disagree as to the privacy of Fakebook et al... Regardless of how one parses the facts of their genesis, censorship and propaganda are the enemy of free peoples, and whether you want to rectify the corruption of governmental abuse of power, or relegate those propaganda mills to the cesspit of history, if you post and comment here, where we can speak freely without being banned or our content deleted (except by whales - which seem presently to not be intent on such acts), we are acting to resist censorship, propaganda, and promote the free communication of ideas that is the foundation of liberty and free society.


There's no such thing as the American Republic, there are 50 Republics joined together in a Confederation.

Posted using Partiko Android

Also the Federal Government has stopped being lawful the moment it overstepped it's limitations, specifically when it denied the sovereign States the right to secede over 150 years ago.

Posted using Partiko Android

Read the Federal Farmer essays, and recognize that one cannot be both citizen and sovereign.

Posted using Partiko Android

well, actually you are wrong there, its called nationalising. how is it possible someone can make such a stupid comment as this ? are you 10 years old ? you really have never heard of nationalising ?

We're still talking about the states correct and not some socialist country in Europe.

Nationalization is the process of transforming private assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets or assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the state.

Show me one example where a company was FORCED to become State Operated.

Posted using Partiko Android

you really should have googled that first. lol. we are not still talking about your shitty country because i wasnt talking about your POS country in the first place, i was just talking generally. you insular fucks make me laugh. you think the world is the usa. you know fuck all, you dont even know european countries are not generally socialist but your type of mindset doesnt care about facts, despite the fact your country would have probably imploded had it not been for the socialist policies of 1933-36 (new deal). try getting a passport, you need more experience of the world because you are stupid.

from :

1917: Merck & Co. seized by the government during the war, later became a private company, separate from the original Merck Group operating outside of the US.
1917: All U.S. railroads were operated (but not owned) by the Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure. Railroads were returned to private control in 1920.
1918: The U.S. telephone system was nationalized on July 31, 1918, and placed under control of the Post Office department. It was returned to private ownership on July 31, 1919.[70]
1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the Tennessee Electric Power Company.
1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.
1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.
1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed Savings & Loans.
2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.
2008: Some economists consider the government's takeover of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association to have been nationalization (or renationalization).[71][72] The conservatorship model used with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is looser and more temporary than nationalization.[73]
2009: Some economists consider the government's actions through the Troubled Asset Relief Program with regards to Citigroup to have been a partial nationalization.[74] Proposal was made that banks like Citigroup be brought under a conservatorship model similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that some of their "good assets" be dropped into newly created "good bank" subsidiaries (presumably under new management), and the remaining "bad assets" be left to be managed under the supervision of a conservatorship structure.[73] The government's actions with regard to General Motors in replacing the CEO with a government-approved CEO is likewise being considered as nationalization.[75][76] On June 1, 2009, General Motors filed for bankruptcy, with the government investing up to $50 billion and taking 60% ownership in the company. President Barack Obama stated that the nationalization was temporary, saying, "We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way to help GM succeed"[77]

i think you would rather give money with no return than nationalise something because you are stupid. your country subsidises the fuck out of everything and you still bleat on about the free market. if you think throwing away money to private business is better than nationalising something i cant help you. not that i want to, i wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire.